1995.08.08 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OFF-CHARTER POSTS Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 19:25:12 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <1995Jul31.151346.17907@nosc.mil>, north@nosc.mil (Mark H.
North) wrote:

> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> 
> >Here is my message for you, Bob: since you claim that discussions of
> >gravitation are irrelevant, I take it that you know what the proper
> >explanation of "cold fusion" is, and that it lies outside the framework of
> >gravitaitonal theory. Therefore, please enlighten the rest of us. 
> 
> Since you asked here's a clue for you. If you think gravitation has
> anything to do with "cold fusion" other than holding the apparatus on the
> table you reveal your abysmal knowledge of physics and just make yourself
> look foolish. In any case, off topic posts will be cancelled (I just
> cancelled three myself, it's easy).
> 
> >Alternatively, you might avoid the risk of being hanged by not starting up
> >another time-wasting, interminable thread in which would-be censors flame,
> >and are flamed by, those who believe in freedom of speech.
> 
> Apparently, you know as little about what constitutes free speech as you
> do about physics. In the future you would do better to confine your
> posts to topics in which you have at least a modicum of education if
> such topics exist.
> 
> Mark

I cannot resist re-posting the above. Note the last sentence of Mark
North's first paragraph: "In any case, off topic posts will be cancelled
(I just cancelled three myself, it's easy)."

We have had oceans of indignant posts complaining about the "off charter"
gravitational thread of Tom Potter, and about the "off topic" thread of
Mr. Wallace. Everybody seemed eager to censor persons whose judgment of
what was relevant differed from their own. And now we have a paltry three
protests in response to a blatant assault on the free speech rights of us
all. Where is the frenzied organizational activity in response to this
threat? Where is the clamoring for a vote? Where are the threats of
"nastygrams" and complaints to such powers as may be, in response to a
person who claims to cancel posts which he considers to be off topic? Is
there anybody out there who is dumb enough to believe that Mark North is
talking about canceling his own posts? Is there anybody out there who is
dumb enough to not realize that their posts, if this fellow means what he
obviously seems to mean, will be canceled if he deems them to be "off
topic?"

Whatsamatter guys? Cat got your tongues? You denied that your previous
rat-pack behavior was aimed at crushing the free speech of others, so now
you have a chance to prove it! Let's see a roar of indignation and
frenzied organizational activity in defense of free speech!

I'll not be holding my breath while I'm waiting.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 / Howard Eckles /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
     
Originally-From: heckles@ix.netcom.com (Howard Eckles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
Date: 9 Aug 1995 00:47:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <kovskyDCMywH.ys@netcom.com> kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky) writes: 
>
>Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  Any California lawyer out there interested? Or able to advise?  
>
>	I am a California lawyer, Archimedes, State Bar #66071.
>
>	I have not seen all the postings that you consider defamatory, 
>but, based on what I do know, I do not think you have much of a case.
>
>	When a person actively involves himself in matters of public 
>debate and controversy, he becomes a "public figure" for purposes of
the 
>law of defamation.  (Defamation includes both oral utterances --
slander 
>-- and written utterances --libel.)  A "public figure" has a higher 
>standard of proof in a defamation case:  he must prove that the
defendant 
>knew the utterances were false and that the defendant uttered them
with 
>malice.  
>
>	This legal principle was first announced in the leading case of
>"New York Times v. Sullivan."  (Yes, the NYT established the rule of
law
>that prevents your suit.) Sullivan was a sheriff in a Southern state
who
>sued the NYT after the paper wrote an article ascribing actions to him
>that were injurious to civil rights workers.  Our Supreme Court held
that
>the sheriff could not go forward with his suit and could not get a
local 
>jury to determine whether the NYT had to pay him damages. 
>
>	In my opinion, a judge deciding whether your case could be 
>carried forward would say:  "Mr. Plutonium, you posted many articles
to 
>sci.physics in which you proposed theories that deviated from the 
>standards of the science.  Moreover, you did so in a fashion that 
>highlighted the unconventional tenor of your ideas.  Indeed, one might

>almost say you trumpeted the distinctive exotic characteristics of
your 
>approach.  Under these circumstances, Mr. Merriman's declarations 
>that you are mentally ill (however false they might be) are not 
>actionable.   Galileo had to put up with false statements about his 
>character.  The Wright Brothers had to put up with false statements
that 
>they were mentally ill.  So did Robert Goddard and many other
scientists 
>whom history has proved right.  It's the price of glory."
>
An opinion from a lookie-loo. 
Where I live there is a law against public racial and reglious
defamation. Swastika and hate slogans on churches and graves etc.  How
can AP be doing anything less than this.  How can he grieve against
criticism for doing something that may get him jail time?

This is my opinion of what I read in this public forum. There may be no
similarity but there is plenty of hate in the postings of AP

Howard
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenheckles cudfnHoward cudlnEckles cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 05:02:16 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3vo4ks$59f@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>: In article <3vip26$9a1@mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>: >Bruce D. Scott (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:

>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: I don't think so.  Few people are aware that the solar constant isn't.  
>: There have been periods extending for several hundred years when
>: the orb has either underpreformed or over performed, with quite 
>: serious effects to man's economy and well being.  

>You think we can make a fusion reactor that will produce output
>even above or below expectations for several hundred years?

Yes!

>: Further it doesn't provide energy which we can untilize safely in
>: high densities for driving fast transport for example.

>Of course there are issues of storage of energy. But these all seem
>more tractable than fusion. Keep in mind that we can use solar
>energy to make just about any fuel. It is only a question of cost,
>efficiency and the environmental impact of the entire cycle of
>manufacturing and using the fuel.

But chemical fuels are serverely limited in energy density and therefore 
are fare too inefficient to be considered for interplanetary trips.  

>: >That is ridiculous. For most of the worlds population enough power
>: >could be generated for individual use with solar roofs. You need solar
>: >farms only for industrial or high density populations. There are plenty
>: >of desserts in the world that are not usable for much else. 

Because without anuetronic energy the desserats stand little chance
of being teraformed to lush forests!

>A recent issue of Business Week pointed out that solar is expected
>to be cost competitive with grid power in many urban areas by the
>year 2000. Once that crossover happens I expect the use of solar
>to grow rapidly and the costs to continue to fall as efficiencies
>rise. The research that is making this possible was motivated by
>the need to expand electrical capacity without increasing pollution
>in LA. Solar is ideal for this since its output is at a peak when
>demand for air conditioning is also at a peak. The breakthrough
>came when TI was able to manufacture solar cells from amorphous
>silicon. This greatly reduced costs. If the money that has been
>thrown down the rat hole of fusion research had been well invested
>in solar research solar would probably be in wide spread use today.

Grid power for the couch pototo just doesn't cut it.  


>: >The *only* long term alternatives are solar
>: >or nuclear (including fusion). There is a finite amount of fossil
>: >fuel and we seem to already be suffering the ill effects of using too
>: >much of this. The origin of the energy in all fossil fuel
>: >is solar. It is not a question of converting to solar power but rather
>: >of using solar in a way that is not environmentally damaging and
>: >is sustainable.

Which is indentally true of aneturonic energy  

>First fossil fuel is solar power. It is just solar power in a
>form that is not sustainable. Second we need to understand the
>atmosphere and the planet far better before we start reengineering
>the atmosphere. Large scale engineering projects taken on with
>too narrow an understanding of the entire system regularly lead
>to disasters that cost a fortune to undo. It is possible that
>projects on this scale cannot be undone.


>: Then there would be an accelerated plant 
>: growth which would result in far more density tonage of biosphere 
>: and surface coverage (including those desserts).  What's required
>: is to clean the CO2 of other acid gases, and that can be done
>: with lime stone.  Or use fusion energy to release C02 from such
>: stone formations and use the remaining basic oxides to de-acidify 
>: exiting acid regions.  The advantage here, is that O2 is increased 
>: as well as C02.    

>Fuel from plants (as opposed to fossil fuel) might be a significant
>element in a solar economy.

>The rest of what you suggest is bizarre and dangerous. Lets solve the
>problems we understand. Solving problems we do not understand is a good
>way to get into a great deal of trouble as recent history has demonstrated
>over and over.

>Dream on, just please do not try to actually do any of these things.
>Perhaps you should seek employment as a writer for Star Trek.

I don't think so.  p-^11B contains about 25,000,000 times the energy
of LOx fuel.  By knowing how to generate stable configurations, and 
being able to presurize this fuel to well over required minium burn 
conditions, allows it to burn with power densities of 10 megawatts
per cubic centimeter.  

>You cannot say solar power does not work because the world for the
>most part is run on solar power. It is only a question of converting
>to a sustainable and environmentally benign form of solar power.

And will so long after aneutronic generators take over the bulk of
mankinds needs.  

>Many companies invest in technological solutions that never pan out.
>I cannot say that it is impossible to develop a clean safe form of fusion
>but I think it quite unlikely with any foreseeable technology.

But you are just blindly going on probabilities, as as such I
too would believe what you believe.  But in this case the
realities are different.  

>In contrast solar can solve the problems economically and with
>existing technology. Some parts of the puzzle such as energy storage
>for transportation are not yet economical but they will be in
>a foreseeable time frame. Were other forms of power required to
>pay their full cost (including pollution damage) solar would be
>widely competitive today.

But I want my children to fly to mars and my grandchildren
to nearby stars.  I wouldn't if the aneutronic fusion approach
we have in mind wasn't a likely winner.  



Koloc, P.M. "Fusion Implications of Free-Floating PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoids" 
Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Evaluation of
Current Trends in Fusion Research, Nov 14-18 1994, Washington DC
(in publication) 

Roth, J.R. "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy" Proceedings of the 
     IEEE, THE 13TH SYMPOSIUM ON FUSION ENGINEERING, Knoxville 
     (Oct. 2-6, 1989), Cat. No. 89 CH 2820-9  Vol 2, pages 1407-1411  

Koloc, P.M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space 
     Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141


>Paul Budnik
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: FYI98 - PCAST Report on DOE Fusion Program
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 23:30:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <DCxsrE.Dr2@festival.ed.ac.uk> A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk writes:
>
>	come again?  our sun is variable?  do you want to be a 
>	co-author - i think we have a real breakthrough on our hands
>	here...
>
>	andrew

I'm not certain I would call it a breakthough, since Nature is
calling the cards.   But we do have a mechanism that seems to suggest 
such a likelyhood as substantial solar varience over hundreds of years, 
and it would have a varience that that correlates with the intensity of 
solar activity or the lack thereof.  

Are you a solar plasma physicist?   Has your Group tried to construct
solar output based on long term emperical data such as extrapolated 
tree ring growth or some other mechanically observable effect?  

>-- 
>  A.Cooke@roe.ac.uk  work phone 0131 668 8357  home phone/fax 0131 667 0208
>    institute for astronomy, royal observatory, blackford hill, edinburgh
                     http://www.roe.ac.uk/ajcwww
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 11:38 -0500 (EST)

zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC) writes:
 
-> We have spent a lot of time discussing various possible mechanisms for
-> fusion reactions in a Palladium lattice pumped full of hydrogen or
-> Deuterium. These discussions under the thread of "Marshall Dudley
-> hypothesis" and "nuclear reaction time scales" have lead me to believe
-> that fusion reactions might happen when hydrogen is embedded in the
-> Palladium ion's outer electron shell. These reactions may be due to the
-> shielding effect of the electron's negative charge in between two hydrogen
-> nuclei. Even when we were discussing this I thought of water as a
-> structure where two hydrogen ions are embedded in the outside shell of
-> oxigen. Fusion might happen with the mechanisms we discussed there.
 
No, there is a big difference here.  Hydrogen combines with oxygen by covalent
bonding.  In that case electron(s) are shared by two atoms.  In the case of
Palladium we are likely looking at an ionic bond.  For an ionic bond the
hydrogen or other atom gives up an electron which gets added to the shell of
the palladium.  In the case of hydrogen, we end up with a nucleus with no
electron left.  In water we end up sharing electrons so that the hydrogen
appears to have 2 instead of 1.  This theory will not work for covalent bonds.
 
-> The
-> expected results would manifest in excess heat as well as thermal neutrons
-> (hard to detect)
 
Although thermal neutrons may be hard to detect directly, a gamma is normally
released when it is adsorbed by a nucleus.  Gammas are easy to detect, and thus
far the results have be mostly negative.
 
-> and energetic electrons that are absorbed or slowed down
-> by the lattice (or water in this case) resulting in photons possibly also
-> absorbed and converted to heat at least partially.
 
This part I can buy, especially since there are reports of X-ray film being
fogged.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.california
Subject: Re: Plutonium v. Merriman, a lawyer's response
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 04:59:10 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3vm7vf$2b6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>  Thank you very kindly for this professional advice Mr. Kovsky. And it
>looks as the odds are unfavorable. But I am reminded about the European
>physicist who hired a lawyer and won out of court settlement. I think
>these circumstances are in my favor. (1) It was not a passing comment
>but a frequent and systematic broadcasting. I mean, will the Internet
>accomodate someone who posts continual hate mail non-stop against
>another (2) It seems so much of justice these days is settled out of
>court rather than tie up time. In my case, my job is of no consequence
>but Barry's is.

Might I remind you that you rather viciously and continuously
defamed me in many postings? And that you even went so far as
to title the string with my name and a further attack? I am willing
to forgive and forget for a measly $1,000.

>   So, if the 500 bucks is not sent I would like to hire a lawyer. I
>would like to know the email of the lawyer who defended the European
>physicist and won.

You may then have him contact my lawyer since anyone who wishes to
assume your debts is someone I really want to talk to.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 05:19:08 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <s7Z79c7w200w@alcyone.darkside.com>,
Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.darkside.com> wrote:

>It seems to me that you completely missed his point.  The original 
>objection was that censoring Ludwig is a violation of free speech.  
>Hollebeek's point, as I see it, was that since Dartmouth is paying for 
>the distribution of his opinions via news, Dartmouth has complete 
>control of the decision whether or not they wish Ludwig's opinions to 
>continue to sent from their site or not.  That is, it's not a matter 
>of free speech, it's a matter of whether or not Dartmouth is willing 
>to tolerate Ludwig, which so far they apparently are.

Ahh, but it isn't DARTMOUTH who are complaining is it? How has this
argument moved to the point where freedom of speech is conmsidered a
commercial item? Dartmouth allows Plutonium access as well as everyone
else. Whatever their policy is they have the right to limit Plutonium
only as long as their policy is uniformly enforced.

What the suggestion was was that members here complain to Dartmouth and
try and get LP expelled, as it were. It was these members of this conference
who were trying to limit LP's freedom of speech. What has Dartmouth
to do with that?

Also it is interesting that many seem to feel that since LP is "only
a dishwasher" his rights aren't important to all of us equally. Sorry,
I despise LP, but I support his rights to express himself even in
the face of people who like to consider themselves superior because
they can turn a more elegant phrase.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.07 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
     
Originally-From: Paul Dietz <dietz@stc.comm.mot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Combustion - New Energy Source
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 23:54:42 -0500
Organization: Software Engineering Research Lab

In article <EACHUS.95Aug7174052@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre.org wrote:

[note followup]

>  > primary energy demand.  The uranium dissolved in the oceans will last
>  > on the rough order of a million years.
>
>  Okay, but I don't know how to extract it efficiently...

The Japanese have demonstrated a polymer (a polyamidoxime) that
can recover uranium from seawater for less than $500/lb.  At that price
the contribution of the cost of the uranium to the cost of the
breeder generated power is small.

 >It is demonstrated technology.  Mineral extraction from seawater has
 >only been economically successful for light elements, in particular
 >lithium and magnesium.

And bromine.  The technology for extracting uranium is known,
just not yet competitive in a world where some uranium ores have
uranium concentrations in the tens of percents.

 >  >  Breeders could
 >  > tolerate uranium at costs 1000x the price of uranium today.
 >
 >    Hmmm.  We can argue semantics here, but you are not going to get
 >more than about 150x burner efficiency with Uranium breeders, and the
 >numbers are closer to 70-90x.

Yes; burners can also tolerate prices 10-20 times higher than today,
and breeders can tolerate prices 50 to 100 times higher than that.
Uranium is currently very cheap.


 > However, since thorium is on the order of one hundred times as
 > abundant as Uranium why not use it?

You are in error.  Thorium is only about 4 times as abundant as
uranium in the crust.  Uranium is around 3 ppm, thorium around 12 ppm.
Uranium is more easily concentrated into ore bodies by redox
reactions, though (U(VI) is soluble, U(IV) is not.)

	Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 05:22:39 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3vnlv3$aqv@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Douglas J. Zare <zare@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>Spams are not acceptable forms of expression; they are abuses of the 
>internet. AP's intentional volume of posts to irrelevant newsgroups 
>constitutes an attack on those groups and a violation of the trust of 
>those who support the internet with time, materials, and money. I find his 
>false FAQ's to be even worse.

Excuse me, but get a life. No one is forcing you to read Plutonium.
I don't, why should you?

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Alan M /  Re: Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 06:44:14
Organization: Home

In article: <4054g6$s0e@dub-news-svc-3.compuserve.com>  <100437.530@comp
serve.com> writes:
> His device has run for as much as 3000 hours and produced 200 
> megajoules of excess energy, of which only 4 kilojoules can have been
> produced as chemical energy, at a rate of between 50 and 100 kilojoules 
> per hour. Surely the time has come for "official" science to stop discussing
> whether the effect is "real "and start comissioning some in-depth studies
> as to the explanations for such phenomena. The world needs safe energy
> production badly enough. For how long will the scientific establishment
> continue to fail the tesr?
>
What are you waiting for, Prasad. If you run quickly, you might even
beat Jed to making those millions out of CF!

Who needs the scientific theory if you *know* it produces excess heat?

Just grab the idea and sell it to all the eager energy consumers.
 
-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / David Davies /  Re: Reply to David Davies
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to David Davies
Date: 8 Aug 1995 17:07:22 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

>I don't ignore the possibility that cold fusion occurs in a many body
>system.
 
good. That's my main point out of the way.

>...
>What is lacking in any of the CF theories concerning many-body systems
>leading to cold fusion is a honest look at the implications of saying
>that there are n-bodies involved. 

The question of honesty comes up a lot in this group. I am not aware
of any obvious dishonesty associated with CF. Ignorance, carelessness,
confusion, pig-headed obstinancy by the tonne, but I think that people
are generally honest. What you seem to be getting at is more to do with
thoroughness and I have to admit that most of my postings are straight
off the top of my head. You too Dick?

>                                    To do this you have to say what the
>"bodies" are.  You have a theory.
 
No, not to do with fusion. I did put up a rough sketch of a theory to do
with extracting energy from vacuum fluctuations via Deuterium and I still
like it. To my mind nobody here produced a good refutation.

>                                       Please state what the coordinates
>of the nucleons are!  Please indicate the assumptions you make concerning
>the form of the wave function.

You know i cant do that. As far as I can see there isnt a theory of 
nuclear interaction that can be applied to the problem of D fusion in
a crystal matrix but I hope someone can show me wrong.

>Until you do this, you don't have a theory.  You are just blowing smoke!
Aahhhhhhhhhhh but where else to start?
>There is a basic problem.  If you assert that more than two deuterons
>are involved in the fusion, or that the the nuclear wavefunctions are
>perturbed with respect to the wave functions of free particles you
>can't legitimately make any of the standard approximations used for
>atomic or solid state theories.

A key point here is that I dont think this problem is one that can be
handled by perturbation approaches. It may be way beyond our present
analytical or numerical techniques. 

>You, and many others, are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

I am just trying to map out some possibilities. 

>You want the deuterons to act like deuterons inspite of some unspecified
>changes in their internal wave functions.  If you change those wavefunctions
>those little lumps aren't deuterons anymore.  What are they?

In a critical context they are part of a bigger wavefunction including Pd, 
Li etc. and nobody knows how they might behave.

>Dick Blue


dave
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / David Davies /  Re: Moessbauer Effect?
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moessbauer Effect?
Date: 8 Aug 1995 17:35:42 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:
->    (I wrote:)
->A phonon can build up incrementally as it recruits more atoms so the
->energy of the reaction could, hypothetically, be bled off relatively
->slowly.
-
-Steven Jones has already addressed this issue.  The problem is that
-you have to dissipate 24 MeV of energy inside the lifetime of the 4He*
-nucleus.  He showed that special relativity considerations make it
-impossible for all of the energy to go into phonons in the time available
-to it.  I could probably dig up the old articles if you were interested
-(or you could get them from sunsite; as I recall, using "special relativity"
-as the keywords finds them pretty quickly).
---
-                                       Richard Schultz
-
As I have repeatedly pointed out here, the logic of this argument is 
flawed in that it is possible that no isolated He* state exists in this 
situation and that we should look at the excited states of the whole 
xtal+D+D (or whatever) ensemble. 

mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel) wrote:
-Dave Davies (dave.davies@anu.edu.au) wrote:
-: eg: What is the maximum phonon energy for a single xtal domain of a
-: certain size?
-: ... etc.

-Can you make sound loud enough that it could conceivably pop electrons
-and positrons out of the vacuum?  (14Mev > 2*511kev)  What does
-it mean to have a MeV phonon if the binding energies of nuclei holding
-them in  the lattice are O(1eV).
-

One Mev is a lot of energy for one classical particle to have but 
distributed in an xtal domain it is not a lot. The Chubbs in thier theory 
assume 10^7 atoms in a domain which is quite small but enough to make the 
point, I think.

-: A phonon can build up incrementally as it recruits more atoms so the
-: energy of the reaction could, hypothetically, be bled off relatively
-: slowly.
-
-This doesn't make any sense.
-
-Phonons are a fancy name for quantum sound.

Well, yes and no. Sound in air is not phonons and that is where we usually
think of sound waves. In a crystal lattice things behave differently even
in a classical approach. In a semi-classical approach a phonon is a vibrat-
ional mode of a coherent ensemble of the crystal latice atoms that can 
expand to include a whole crystal domain. Each atom is assumed to vibrate
in a classical field and in the low energy limit this is assumed to be
simple harmonic motion.

To calculate high energy modes for this would involve highly non-linear
terms in the hamiltonian and I am not aware of anyone having done this
and, to answer Dick Blue, I have no intention of trying.

I have, however, had a lot of experience with numerical models of coupled
anharmonic resonators and the behavior gets extremely complex - from chaos
to highly ordered states. From that I can confidently say that anyone who 
makes broad generalisations about what is *not* possible is just guessing 
blindly.

-
-You have an excited nucleus.  Now just how is it supposed to make sound?
-
-How can it "jiggle" back and forth against the lattice without emitting
-something else?  Remember you have to conserve momentum.
-
There is some circumstantial evidence for the existance of this coupling, 
which does not have to be strong (remember pushing someone on a swing?). 
The best evidence, if confirmed, would be the Reifenschweiler experiments 
with tritium decay. Also the Moessbauer effect adds some support.

The question of conservation of momentum is a red herring introduced by
particle beam experimenters who are used to having an incoming particle.

Try to think how you can push someone on a swing while running and you
will see what I mean. It is a different context. If you stand relatively
still, just moving to and fro in time with the swing it is much easier.

It is the difference between a long term resonance interaction and a single
shot collision. I readily admit that if you could take a full QFT approach
the distinction would become more complex. The difference, still, is in the 
scale of the ensemble being considered and the relevant time scales for the 
differing ensembles.



dave

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / David Davies /  Re: extrapolation
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: extrapolation
Date: 8 Aug 1995 17:55:17 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> ...
>The work I refer to above takes confinement time into account. 

The muon catalysed fusion is still a qualitatively different configuration
so extrapolation is not valid.

>There were speculations about coherent nuclear effects, but the problem 
>in doing that is the extreme difficulty in bridgeing the 10^4 scale 
>difference between atomic and nuclear dimensions and energies as well 
>as the very short range of the forces in nuclei.  Coherent effects 
>in materials are easy to come by because the forces that are strong 
>enough to affect structure are of long range. 

The coulomb barrier is not a short range effect and the effect of
coherence is to increase the impact of the interaction at long range.
eg energy transmission in a 1D line of resonators peaks sharply at the
resonant frequency. 

>>The Moesbauer effect has been used as an example to demonstrate the sort of
>>ensemble behaviour that is possible in a crystal lattice.  

>It has also been used to point out the special conditions that have to 
>be met to couple to that lattice.  One of those is a low energy decay. 

Getting the resonances tuned right is an obvious problem. Surface effects
that vary the interatomic spacing might be relevant.

>-- 
> James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     | Tallahassee: the Flowering Inferno

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Tom Potter /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: 8 Aug 1995 07:58:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <4044d5$8is_001@234.151.54.du.nauticom.net> mtauson@nauticom.net
(Michael Tauson) writes: 
>
>In article <3vg12r$c0e@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>   tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter ) wrote:
>->>In summary, I request that you complain about *facts*.  Do not
>->>complain on the basis of *unsupported* *speculations*, however
likely
>->>they may be.
>->Somehow, when I read this post, 
>->I get an image of Captain Queeg < sp? > playing with his balls.
>
>	Um ... would you care to re-phrase that just a little bit?  <G>
>
>Michael (who lurks mostly)

Anyone who saw or read the "Caine Mutiny" knows what I double meant.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / T Neustaedter /  Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
     
Originally-From: tarl@tarl.net (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Apology to Archimedes Plutonium
Date: 8 Aug 1995 01:31:01 GMT
Organization: None

In article <3vp2ua$8t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>   I therefore feel it necessary to put a time limit on the acceptance
> of a money order in the amount of 500 bucks as of 3 Sept 93. [95]

And now, net-Blackmail! A new low, even for Ludwig!

> A physics journal reserved space and
> later declined due to the Internet posts calling me "mentally insane"

If you think _THAT's_ why they declined to publish your articles, you
are mistaken. Matter of fact, one might presume paranoid delusions.

If you are indeed sane, you have done a good job of pretending otherwise.
-- 
	Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@tarl.net
	Ashland, MA, USA	http://tarl.net/tarl/
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 /  ZoltanCCC /  Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
     
Originally-From: zoltanccc@aol.com (ZoltanCCC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silly nonsense from Robert Heeter
Date: 8 Aug 1995 12:01:48 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Just another thought that occured to me is that perhaps the input and
output pressures are different and this difference is heating the water.
After all if you drive water through a pipe with some resistance, the
water will heat up converting the energy released by the pressure drop
multiplied by the volume of water transferred.

Zoltan Szakaly 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenzoltanccc cudlnZoltanCCC cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Please complain about Archimedes Plutonium to Dartmouth
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 16:13:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3vrh94$bdg@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <DCKwJ3.6L2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
>(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
>>
>>In article <3vgabj$kek@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>The best policy to to be polite while maintaining integrity.  
>>
>>     Thanks Jack, best laugh I've had in weeks.
>>
>>                                 dale bass
>>
>Let me put this in context for you newcomers. When I first got on
>Internet a few years ago I was immediately flamed - gang raped as it
>were by dale bass, and a few others and reacted in anger.

    Give yourself more credit, Jack.  My little gang of one could
    hardly match the flames you driveled on yourself.

>Dale being an engineer with a mechanical cast of mind has a rather
>static view of human personality and apparently has never heard of
>complex adaptive systems. This is a characteristic he shares with
>crackpots that he loves to label etc. Sort of pot calling the kettle
>black.

    Au contraire, my dear Jack, it is your limited soul that is 
    infested with scabies, your rather limited view of nature as 
    the source of pixies and gremlins rather than the rich 
    mellifluous source of endless wonder that it is.

    On the other hand, I think you're loopy, not a crackpot.

>Furthermore, to illustrate the sophistry in DB's rhetoric, if one looks
>at my remark above "The best policy ..." It is certainly true as an
>idea an objective that we mortals cannot always achieve in every
>particular case. Fortunately, I had John Rawl's course in Ethics at
>Cornell in the 50's where this sort of delicate distinction was
>emphasized - a distinction too fine for the coarse-grained bass. :-) 

    It always looks funny when your nose is runny and you're telling
    everyone to blow.

    As usual, Jack, it's been a treat.

                         dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / M D /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 8 Aug 1995 15:21:27 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK

In article <3vr2rs$9ml@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[misunderstanding snipped]
>Forgive me for misunderstanding your comment.

No probs.

>> If you can demonstrate any of your three assertions (i.e. that space and/or
>> mass are mind-created, unneeded, or distorted concepts), I'll be very impressed
>> - note that your existing 'cycles' stuff is _not_ a suitable demonstration.
>
>I have shown many times that all properties can be reduced to cycles
>and cycle ratios. 

You have shown (I'm not qualified to say whether you have shown _correctly_,
but the absence of flames suggests perhaps you have) _only_ that the equations
we use to model 'properties' can be manipulated such that all units other than
time (or reciprocal time) cancel out.

>These physical properties are sensed and converted to
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Going from expressing something as seconds^-1 to saying that it is _made_
from time is not justifiable logically. Whatever transformation of units you
have accomplished is just not relevant evidence to support the assertion that
cycles are the stuff of which all is made. It's a long way to Tiperary, but
that doesn't mean Ireland is made of kilometers. (It's mostly Guinness and peat
bog, in fact).

>mind stuff. The hierarchy of transforms from fundamental "reality"
>( Cycles ) to perception is as follows:
>cycles -> cycle ratios -> physical properties ( frequency, energy, etc. )
>-> sensory input -> auto correlation with other simultaneous sensory input
>-> cross correlation with existing memory -> mental perception

You are using the '->' symbol to avoid deciding between using the word 'is' and
the word 'describes'. For instance, cycle ratios may _describe_ physical
properties, but you havent given any evidence that they _are_ physical
properties.

Since your units transformation is not sufficient evidence to support this
hierarchy you present, its time to bring out some evidence, or suggest a test
that could be made to distinguish say between "charge is charge" and "charge is
a cycle ratio made of mindstuff".


>1. All of the physical properties can be mapped directly to cycles.

It may be true that they can be _described by_ cycles.

>2. The senses are non-linear and only operate with a resolution
>   of about one percent of the full scale log response.

Near meaningless.
What is the 'full log scale response' of touch?
What is the 99% of temperature perception that we are missing?

Within its design parameters (i.e. visible wavelengths) the eye outperforms any
device we have (mainly by being able to operate over a range of orders of
magnitude of photon flux).

>3. Perception involves both sensory input and hard wired calculations
>   which have proved to have some survival value. For example, various
>   animals see colors, shape and movement differently. This difference
>   was selected out by "Natural Selection" forces.

True. Pheasants panic if a 2d hawk silouhette moves over them. If the same
cutout is moved back over them in the opposite direction (i.e. looking somewhat
like a goose or swan in flight), the pheasants do not panic.

>4. After perception, the input data is resolved in such a way as to
>   optimize glandular secretions. 

True only in cases where a glandular response is appropriate.
Reading a map in order to work out how to get to a museum is not a glandular
'fight or flight' process....

>   For example, Ben Joe Bullock
>   compares new input data to the model of physics he has formed
>   through years of study. If the new data does "not compute",
>   various glandular secretions occur and he must resolve this
>   conflict with a fight or flight reaction. ( Flaming or kill filing )

Absolute rubbish. I don't know who BJB is, but any scientist worth the name
assesses the rigour with which the data was collected, and if it cannot be
faulted on that basis, accepts the data and abandons or modifies any
theories/hypotheses that cannot incorporate that data.

If this was just an incidental falme at someone else, why not just send it to
them. If it was intended as a general observation of the nature of the
scientific community, it is both insulting and very wrong. A strawman, in fact,
and a familiar one.

>> What you have done, if accurate (I'm not qualified to judge), is a very clever
>> translation: It deserves the same congratulations that are given to a kid the
>> first time he writes in joined-up handwriting, or to a translator who preserves
>> the sense of a poem in a different language (incidental applause to the
>> translator for 'Cyrano'). You've applied the rules in a new way. Well done.
>>
>> But you go on to say that your new way of expressing the same old things really
>> means that the 'old' ways of expressing things were distortions and highly
>> misleading: this _may_ be so, but it would have to be _proved_ to be so. You
>> may be saying "Bonjour!" instead of "Good day!", but that doesn't prove that
>> "good day!" is _not_ a greeting. Your playing around with units in physics may
>> have utility, but it is just a different way of saying ther same thing - the
>> underlying meaning is unchanged.
>
>The difference between physics and language is that there is not a
>quasi-random, environmentally-based, relationship between "idea" and
>the verbal representation of that idea.

I disagree.
Equations are the language with which we map phenomena and properties.
Just as language is shaped by the properties of the human throat etc, our
equations are shaped by what really happens in the world, but within those
limits there is room to express things in very different ways - like changing
all the units to time...

You seem to be arguing that a phenomenon and the equation which describes it
are the same thing.

> Just as large objects can be
>broken into smaller objects, complex properties can be broken up
>into smaller ( more fundamental ) properties. 

You say this as though it flows naturally from your earlier point. It doesn't.

How do you prove that mass or charge can be broken down into sub-properties?
All you've done is say it can. Prove it. Give some shred of evidence that might
lead someone to think that this suggestion is at least reasonable.

>Once you have broken
>down a complex property ( Or object ) to cycles,
>there is no place else to go. The ultimate form of information
>is the BIT ( Binary unIT ) which in its most fundamental form is
>the smallest cycle available. ( That associated with the electron
>at this time, and that associated with the neutrino later. )

We are off in your science fiction universe here.

One shred of evidence or testable predicition will change this from a fun story
to a hypothesis.

>> >By this reasoning, if you are color ( colour ) blind, I should only
>> >see the colors you see. In other words, you are substituting mind creations
>> >for global, symmetrical, indivisible, quantum  reality.
>>
>> You have failed to understand my reasoning at all:
>> My point is, you insist that because you say "rouge" instead of "red", the
>> light is therefore of different wavelength. French is no more valid that
>> english in describing an object, just as "kilograms" are no more valid than
>> "seconds" in describing its properties.
>
>Then why should we screw around with atoms and atomic particles?
>Why not consider the human as fundamental and define all chemicals,
>elements and particles in terms of "the human".

You _could_ describe everything in terms of humans if you wanted, although if
you're talking about elements and particles you'll find yourself using the
phrase "a lot lot smaller" most of the time. The fact that you chose to
describe things in this way doesn't mean that that is what they are made of!
Its description, analogy. 

You seem to be operating from several unquestioned assumptions:
1) There is a fundamental thing from which everything is made.
2) If you can describe everything with reference to one unit, that unit must
   be the measure of the 'fundamental thing' in (1).

Neither of these assumptions are valid. Both require proof. Why do you hope
that the universe is so tidy? 

>> >Why write the book for color blind people?
>>
>> The easy way to convince a colour-blind person that they _are_ limited in
>> perception is to demonstrate the utility of your extended colour vision -
>> seeing those hidden numbers in the dot patterns or whatever.
>>
>> So, if your time-based perception of the world is superior to mine, fenced in
>> as it is by the unnecessary notions like locality, mass, distance, potential
>> etc., all you've got to do is demonstrate utility: a testable prediction, or a
>> description that follows logically in 'cycles' but is near-impossible to
>> express in my limited vocab of modern physics. Note that in my first comment I
>> didn't question that your translation might have merit in spotting
>> relationships or describing systems...
>
>Unfortunately, physics is currently a massive hierarchy, from which
>data has been assembled using the existing model. For example, if
>you use my method on Solar system data, you will find that you end
>up with a better variance ( Standard deviation ) than you will get
>if you used conventional physics. 

What sort of 'solar system data'? Meaningless to me without some sort of
context.

Any physicist care to check these claims - or have they been checked before?

>It becomes clear that the data
>which one uses as a standard to which a new theory must be gauged
>is computed from the existing theories. In other words, almost
>all astronomical and ionization data operates on the principle
>that radius is a primary concept rather than considering that
>two distances or interaction times best define a system. 

Hang on, I thought distance disappeared in your 'cycles' model: how can it have
a defining role if it is just mindstuff?

But again - I'm not qualified. is there a physicist in the house?

>This
>approach causes the "reduced mass" problem in atoms and similar
>errors in orbital systems.
>
>In other words, if NASA and any other organization used my
>approach to computing orbits and such:
>
>1. The results would be more accurate.

This seems testable. Care to post a comparison of say the flightpath NASA used
to put stuff in orbit around mars and the one you would've suggested?

>2. The computation would be simpler, and thus less prone to error.
>3. Much less computer resources would be needed. This is very
>   desirable in real-time and processor-intensive applications.
>4. The Babel of units and constants could be done away with.

In the same comparison, these points would become obvious, were they valid.

>I am confident that a few programmers around the world have grasped what I
>have presented, and that as they discover how much their programs can be
>improved by using my approach, that they will be forced to use them in
>tight real-time and processor-intensive applications, and at that point
>these ideas will rapidly permeate the data processing, engineering and
>physics communities.

Any programmers out there care to comment?

>I welcome inquiries from companies, engineers and programmers who
>are fighting time or processor constraints in real-time applications.
>Why work with the Babel of convoluted equations, a multitude of
>constants and units when there is a better, faster, more accurate way?

Maybe they want the right answer?

M.

(to quote one of my favourite .sigs: "good, fast, cheap: pick two" - sounds
like you are claiming to be fast and cheap)
-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark O'Leary,				mdo4@le.ac.uk
Leicester Antibody Group.		"Is all that we see or seem 
(anti-KDEL & ABP1)			 But a dream within a dream?"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 /   /  Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: 8 Aug 1995 19:41:12 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk (Alan M. Dunsmuir) wrote:

>What are you waiting for, Prasad, You could follow Jed in making millions
>out of cold fuion, why wait for a theory....etc

Alan,

This is not up to your usual standard of English conservatism. Surely you 
can do better than this? If the underdeveloped world can benefit from 
de-centralized power production, which cold fusion would bring, am I to be
taxed personally with not making a profit from it. I wish to expedite the 
process, to make the hi-tech world cleaner and the under-developed world
more civilized. Is the criterion for my sincerity to be how much money I
personally am making? 

The commercial world will make money out of it, as it does out of sending 
useful drugs the Third World. This is the only way that things can work.
How do you know that the results of Yoshiaka Arata are invalid? You do
not know. Why doesn't western science take its head out of the sand and 
spend some money to make some proper evaluations, both theroetical and
experimental? What is there to lose? There is much to gain,

                        Very Best Wishes,

                        Ramon Prasad 

         <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden530 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 15:34:18 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <403crf$i3v@boris.eden.com>, little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:

> In article <Z-BC6wi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
> >
> >Barry Merriman <barry@starfire.ucsd.edu> writes:
> > 
> >>I am going to settle for nothing less than replication at independent,
> >>reputable lab with a history of performing sensitive measurments. 
>  
> >As long as you are going to set impossible goals, set 'em high.
> > 
> >- Jed
> 
> Jed, just what is impossible about Barry's suggestion?  It is, in fact,
> the most direct way to get "everyone" to accept the Griggs effect.
> 
> Don't you think an independant reputable lab would be interested in 
> confirming the first working example of a device that obtains energy from
> "somewhere else"?

Jed can speak for himself, but, for the record, here is my answer: given
the state of mankind as it exists today, as we near the beginning of the
21st century, the phrase "independent, reputable lab" is a virtual
contradiction in terms. To say that a lab is independent means that it
will design an appropriate test protocol, perform a test, and report the
results, *whatever those results may be.* Inevitably, given this
procedure, there will be occasions when botched protocols lead to mistaken
results, which are then reported, and the lab's reputation suffers. By
being open to the odd results, such labs make more mistakes. On the other
hand, to say that a lab is "reputable" means that lab personnel are
committed to the established paradigm in physics, and that they use it to
decide when the result of a test is "possible" or "impossible." If the
result is deemed "impossible," according to those criteria, then the test
protocol is deemed flawed, and it is reworked and another test is done.
This process continues until a "possible" result is achieved, and it is
only then that the results are reported. In the vast majority of
instances, this procedure works just fine, because test results that
appear to be impossible usually are incorrect and it is, in fact,
appropriate to redesign the test protocol and try again. By being
close-minded about the odd results, such labs reduce their mistakes to a
minimum and build up a reputation for accuracy. However, when the purpose
of the test protocol is to detect a violation of the established paradigm,
the procedures of the "reputible" lab do not work. When the paradigm
violation is real, the rejection of results that are deemed "impossible"
will lead such a lab, eventually, to the acceptance, and publication, of
the results of a botched test run. In other words, the "reputable" lab
will keep testing until it rejects an "impossible" result, regardless of
whether that result is true of false. For this reason, the demand that a
"reputable" lab verify a violation of the established paradigm amounts to
a demand for the impossible. The difference between an independent lab and
a "reputable" lab lies precisely in the fact that the independent lab
publishes its results, whatever they may be, while the "reputable" lab
only publishes results that fit within the established paradigm. 

Such insights explain why paradigm shifts are always and necessarily
driven by the results of independent, "disreputable" labs. When such labs
report "impossible" results, intellectual warfare begins between defenders
of the establishment paradigm and those who believe that the unorthodox
results are possible. In that battle, if the defenders of the
establishment paradigm succeed in raising reasonable doubts, they win,
because the burden of proof lies with those who seek to overturn generally
accepted knowledge. They can only lose if they fail utterly and are driven
in disgrace from the field of battle.

Bottom line: Barry's demand that the Griggs result be confirmed by an
"independent, reputable lab" is, in fact, a demand for the impossible. It
isn't going to happen, because that isn't how paradigm shifts take place.
The "reputable" labs will be among the last to get on board, not the
first, if a shift does in fact occur.

--Mitchell Jones

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Mitchell Jones /  Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
     
Originally-From: 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Griggs Experiment Hot Water Simplicity Incarnate?
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 17:22:18 -0500
Organization: 21st Century Logic

In article <4018pb$lra@soenews.ucsd.edu>, barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry
Merriman) wrote:

> In article <21cenlogic-0508952006300001@austin-2-7.i-link.net>  
> 21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> > > 
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> > > Appealing to the simplicty of the experiment has no bearing on
> > > whether such ``tuned'' circumstances exist or not. They can
> > > only be ruled out by careful cross check, and moreover, they
> > > are *very difficult to predict in advance*, so simply becuase I 
> > > cannot figure out with high probabiliy what it is does not mean 
> > > its not there.
> > > 
> 
> MJ wrote:
> 
> > 
> > ***{As already noted, Griggs has been responding to criticism and
> > modifying his experimental design for the better part of a decade. The
> > simple,bulletproof design which we have been discussing is the result of
> > that lengthy process. Neither you nor any of the other skeptics can find a
> > hole in that design, despite your lengthy academic credentials, because
> > the careful cross checking has already been done, and re-done, and
> > re-re-done. 
> 
> Mitchell: I don't want to start a war over this. I think we have 
> reasonable disagreement over the *current* situation. Because the setup
> seems, in current scientific thinking---and even current 
> scientific speculation!---very unlikely to produce excess heat, 
> I am going to settle for nothing less than replication at an independent,
> reputable lab with a history of performing sensitive measurments. 
> NIST would be ideal. Once that occurs, I'll be willing to believe 
> it's true. Until them, I primarily advocate looking for more
> loopholes in the protocol.
> 
> You, on the other hand, accept Grigg's already extensive personal
> efforts as sufficient proof. That is fine. It's your judgement. 
> Are you acting on this judgement? E.g., trying to invest in his
> company, or whatever? For that is what I would do if I believed
> in the reality of his claims. Precisely because I would take actions if
> I held such beliefs, I must be cautious and have high standards.

***{Barry, I agree that you should be cautious and have high standards.
Indeed, though you may find this surprising, I agree with many of the
things you say. In particular, I believe that the odds are strongly
against any particular "excess energy" claim being true, due to the simple
statistical fact that vast numbers of them have been made in the past, and
none have proven to be true. Moreover, I consider the law of conservation
of energy to be simply a fact: it cannot be wrong. This means that a
percentage COP in excess of 100 is a literal impossibility. On the other
hand, I take the position that the Griggs result is correct. How can this
be? The answer: I believe that there exists a new source of power within
the Griggs device, a new "fuel," if you will. Just as, if you computed the
percentage COP of a nuclear reactor without recognizing that U235 (or
Plutonium) is a fuel, you would get a percentage COP in excess of 100, so
too if you compute the percentage COP of the Griggs device without
counting its hidden power source as fuel, you will get a percentage COP
over 100. But that does not mean, in either case, that the true percentage
COP is over 100: it means you are not taking all of the power sources
(fuel) into account. 

The difference in our standards, I believe, is this: I focus on the
arguments, and adopt the position which I find easiest to defend. This
means that if I find myself struggling to defend my position while my
opponent is having an easy time of it, I simply change my position. Then,
as if by magic, I find that I am having an easy time of it, while my
opponents are struggling! This was what happened when I argued with Jed
about the validity of Griggs' result: he had an easy time of it, while I
struggled. I didn't like that, so I changed my position. (Now it is *my*
opponents--you guys--who are struggling!) Switching to the side with the
strongest arguments is a little trick I learned, many, many years ago.
Since the truth generally lies on the side which has the strongest
arguments, that's the way you should bet! And, in those cases where you
switch positions and subsequently encounter an argument that gives the
advantage back to the side you abandoned, the solution is similarly
simple: you switch back!  

See how easy that was? I'll bet you wish you had been doing it for years! :-)

As for taking actions to profit from belief in the Griggs result, well,
you can't do it if you wait for confirmation by "reputable" labs. They
will be the last on board, and they will come kicking and screaming, with
lots of egg on their faces. By that time, the profit opportunity will be
long gone. Markets, you see, are very efficient: once a paradigm is common
knowledge among market participants, the types of opportunities which that
paradigm reveals are "traded out"--which means: they produce random gross
returns and, when commisions and slippage are figured in, slight long-term
net losses. And, believe me, "reputable" labs will not come on board until
the old paradigm has been replaced by a new one. That's just the way they
operate. There is nothing you, or I, can do to change it. To make money in
the market in the long run, you need to be an insider positioned to charge
the commisions or to financially outlast those who pay them, or else, if
an outsider, you must embrace the new paradigms before they become
generally accepted. With the exception of pure, dumb luck, there ain't no
other way to do it! Bottom line: an opportunity to make money by investing
in "cold fusion" technology exists now for one reason only: because it
violates the established paradigm and is rejected by virtually every
established "expert" in the field. --Mitchell Jones}***  
> 
> In any case, I certainly think the matter warrants further investigation,
> though I think most interesting would be some form of external verification,
> e.g. scott little getting ahold of a smallish Griggs device.

***{I, too, would like to see more tests. But, since you raised the issue
of making money, I must reiterate what I have said already: by the time
this result is generally accepted, the profit opportunity will be gone.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> 
> > 
> > ***{By the way, Barry: I have been told via e-mail that you walk around
> > the UCSD campus with your head shaved, wearing a day-glo orange hunting
> > cap, that you wear a white shirt on which you have written the symbols of
> > various chemical and physical quantities, that the students titter when
> > you walk by, and that you spend most of your time washing dishes in the
> > student union cafeteria. Is this true? 
> 
> Dammit! The truth is out! Mitch Jones, I condemn you to CHICAGO.
> 
> --
> Barry ``Strontium'' Merriman
> UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cuden21cenlogic cudfnMitchell cudlnJones cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / M D /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 8 Aug 1995 15:21:27 +0100
Organization: University of Leicester, UK

In article <3vr2rs$9ml@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[misunderstanding snipped]
>Forgive me for misunderstanding your comment.

No probs.

>> If you can demonstrate any of your three assertions (i.e. that space and/or
>> mass are mind-created, unneeded, or distorted concepts), I'll be very impressed
>> - note that your existing 'cycles' stuff is _not_ a suitable demonstration.
>
>I have shown many times that all properties can be reduced to cycles
>and cycle ratios. 

You have shown (I'm not qualified to say whether you have shown _correctly_,
but the absence of flames suggests perhaps you have) _only_ that the equations
we use to model 'properties' can be manipulated such that all units other than
time (or reciprocal time) cancel out.

>These physical properties are sensed and converted to
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Going from expressing something as seconds^-1 to saying that it is _made_
from time is not justifiable logically. Whatever transformation of units you
have accomplished is just not relevant evidence to support the assertion that
cycles are the stuff of which all is made. It's a long way to Tiperary, but
that doesn't mean Ireland is made of kilometers. (It's mostly Guinness and peat
bog, in fact).

>mind stuff. The hierarchy of transforms from fundamental "reality"
>( Cycles ) to perception is as follows:
>cycles -> cycle ratios -> physical properties ( frequency, energy, etc. )
>-> sensory input -> auto correlation with other simultaneous sensory input
>-> cross correlation with existing memory -> mental perception

You are using the '->' symbol to avoid deciding between using the word 'is' and
the word 'describes'. For instance, cycle ratios may _describe_ physical
properties, but you havent given any evidence that they _are_ physical
properties.

Since your units transformation is not sufficient evidence to support this
hierarchy you present, its time to bring out some evidence, or suggest a test
that could be made to distinguish say between "charge is charge" and "charge is
a cycle ratio made of mindstuff".


>1. All of the physical properties can be mapped directly to cycles.

It may be true that they can be _described by_ cycles.

>2. The senses are non-linear and only operate with a resolution
>   of about one percent of the full scale log response.

Near meaningless.
What is the 'full log scale response' of touch?
What is the 99% of temperature perception that we are missing?

Within its design parameters (i.e. visible wavelengths) the eye outperforms any
device we have (mainly by being able to operate over a range of orders of
magnitude of photon flux).

>3. Perception involves both sensory input and hard wired calculations
>   which have proved to have some survival value. For example, various
>   animals see colors, shape and movement differently. This difference
>   was selected out by "Natural Selection" forces.

True. Pheasants panic if a 2d hawk silouhette moves over them. If the same
cutout is moved back over them in the opposite direction (i.e. looking somewhat
like a goose or swan in flight), the pheasants do not panic.

>4. After perception, the input data is resolved in such a way as to
>   optimize glandular secretions. 

True only in cases where a glandular response is appropriate.
Reading a map in order to work out how to get to a museum is not a glandular
'fight or flight' process....

>   For example, Ben Joe Bullock
>   compares new input data to the model of physics he has formed
>   through years of study. If the new data does "not compute",
>   various glandular secretions occur and he must resolve this
>   conflict with a fight or flight reaction. ( Flaming or kill filing )

Absolute rubbish. I don't know who BJB is, but any scientist worth the name
assesses the rigour with which the data was collected, and if it cannot be
faulted on that basis, accepts the data and abandons or modifies any
theories/hypotheses that cannot incorporate that data.

If this was just an incidental falme at someone else, why not just send it to
them. If it was intended as a general observation of the nature of the
scientific community, it is both insulting and very wrong. A strawman, in fact,
and a familiar one.

>> What you have done, if accurate (I'm not qualified to judge), is a very clever
>> translation: It deserves the same congratulations that are given to a kid the
>> first time he writes in joined-up handwriting, or to a translator who preserves
>> the sense of a poem in a different language (incidental applause to the
>> translator for 'Cyrano'). You've applied the rules in a new way. Well done.
>>
>> But you go on to say that your new way of expressing the same old things really
>> means that the 'old' ways of expressing things were distortions and highly
>> misleading: this _may_ be so, but it would have to be _proved_ to be so. You
>> may be saying "Bonjour!" instead of "Good day!", but that doesn't prove that
>> "good day!" is _not_ a greeting. Your playing around with units in physics may
>> have utility, but it is just a different way of saying ther same thing - the
>> underlying meaning is unchanged.
>
>The difference between physics and language is that there is not a
>quasi-random, environmentally-based, relationship between "idea" and
>the verbal representation of that idea.

I disagree.
Equations are the language with which we map phenomena and properties.
Just as language is shaped by the properties of the human throat etc, our
equations are shaped by what really happens in the world, but within those
limits there is room to express things in very different ways - like changing
all the units to time...

You seem to be arguing that a phenomenon and the equation which describes it
are the same thing.

> Just as large objects can be
>broken into smaller objects, complex properties can be broken up
>into smaller ( more fundamental ) properties. 

You say this as though it flows naturally from your earlier point. It doesn't.

How do you prove that mass or charge can be broken down into sub-properties?
All you've done is say it can. Prove it. Give some shred of evidence that might
lead someone to think that this suggestion is at least reasonable.

>Once you have broken
>down a complex property ( Or object ) to cycles,
>there is no place else to go. The ultimate form of information
>is the BIT ( Binary unIT ) which in its most fundamental form is
>the smallest cycle available. ( That associated with the electron
>at this time, and that associated with the neutrino later. )

We are off in your science fiction universe here.

One shred of evidence or testable predicition will change this from a fun story
to a hypothesis.

>> >By this reasoning, if you are color ( colour ) blind, I should only
>> >see the colors you see. In other words, you are substituting mind creations
>> >for global, symmetrical, indivisible, quantum  reality.
>>
>> You have failed to understand my reasoning at all:
>> My point is, you insist that because you say "rouge" instead of "red", the
>> light is therefore of different wavelength. French is no more valid that
>> english in describing an object, just as "kilograms" are no more valid than
>> "seconds" in describing its properties.
>
>Then why should we screw around with atoms and atomic particles?
>Why not consider the human as fundamental and define all chemicals,
>elements and particles in terms of "the human".

You _could_ describe everything in terms of humans if you wanted, although if
you're talking about elements and particles you'll find yourself using the
phrase "a lot lot smaller" most of the time. The fact that you chose to
describe things in this way doesn't mean that that is what they are made of!
Its description, analogy. 

You seem to be operating from several unquestioned assumptions:
1) There is a fundamental thing from which everything is made.
2) If you can describe everything with reference to one unit, that unit must
   be the measure of the 'fundamental thing' in (1).

Neither of these assumptions are valid. Both require proof. Why do you hope
that the universe is so tidy? 

>> >Why write the book for color blind people?
>>
>> The easy way to convince a colour-blind person that they _are_ limited in
>> perception is to demonstrate the utility of your extended colour vision -
>> seeing those hidden numbers in the dot patterns or whatever.
>>
>> So, if your time-based perception of the world is superior to mine, fenced in
>> as it is by the unnecessary notions like locality, mass, distance, potential
>> etc., all you've got to do is demonstrate utility: a testable prediction, or a
>> description that follows logically in 'cycles' but is near-impossible to
>> express in my limited vocab of modern physics. Note that in my first comment I
>> didn't question that your translation might have merit in spotting
>> relationships or describing systems...
>
>Unfortunately, physics is currently a massive hierarchy, from which
>data has been assembled using the existing model. For example, if
>you use my method on Solar system data, you will find that you end
>up with a better variance ( Standard deviation ) than you will get
>if you used conventional physics. 

What sort of 'solar system data'? Meaningless to me without some sort of
context.

Any physicist care to check these claims - or have they been checked before?

>It becomes clear that the data
>which one uses as a standard to which a new theory must be gauged
>is computed from the existing theories. In other words, almost
>all astronomical and ionization data operates on the principle
>that radius is a primary concept rather than considering that
>two distances or interaction times best define a system. 

Hang on, I thought distance disappeared in your 'cycles' model: how can it have
a defining role if it is just mindstuff?

But again - I'm not qualified. is there a physicist in the house?

>This
>approach causes the "reduced mass" problem in atoms and similar
>errors in orbital systems.
>
>In other words, if NASA and any other organization used my
>approach to computing orbits and such:
>
>1. The results would be more accurate.

This seems testable. Care to post a comparison of say the flightpath NASA used
to put stuff in orbit around mars and the one you would've suggested?

>2. The computation would be simpler, and thus less prone to error.
>3. Much less computer resources would be needed. This is very
>   desirable in real-time and processor-intensive applications.
>4. The Babel of units and constants could be done away with.

In the same comparison, these points would become obvious, were they valid.

>I am confident that a few programmers around the world have grasped what I
>have presented, and that as they discover how much their programs can be
>improved by using my approach, that they will be forced to use them in
>tight real-time and processor-intensive applications, and at that point
>these ideas will rapidly permeate the data processing, engineering and
>physics communities.

Any programmers out there care to comment?

>I welcome inquiries from companies, engineers and programmers who
>are fighting time or processor constraints in real-time applications.
>Why work with the Babel of convoluted equations, a multitude of
>constants and units when there is a better, faster, more accurate way?

Maybe they want the right answer?

M.

(to quote one of my favourite .sigs: "good, fast, cheap: pick two" - sounds
like you are claiming to be fast and cheap)
-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark O'Leary,				mdo4@le.ac.uk
Leicester Antibody Group.		"Is all that we see or seem 
(anti-KDEL & ABP1)			 But a dream within a dream?"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmdo4 cudfnM cudlnD cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 /   /  Yoshiaka Arata
     
Originally-From: <100437.530@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yoshiaka Arata
Date: 8 Aug 1995 19:41:12 GMT
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated


alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk (Alan M. Dunsmuir) wrote:

>What are you waiting for, Prasad, You could follow Jed in making millions
>out of cold fuion, why wait for a theory....etc

Alan,

This is not up to your usual standard of English conservatism. Surely you 
can do better than this? If the underdeveloped world can benefit from 
de-centralized power production, which cold fusion would bring, am I to be
taxed personally with not making a profit from it. I wish to expedite the 
process, to make the hi-tech world cleaner and the under-developed world
more civilized. Is the criterion for my sincerity to be how much money I
personally am making? 

The commercial world will make money out of it, as it does out of sending 
useful drugs the Third World. This is the only way that things can work.
How do you know that the results of Yoshiaka Arata are invalid? You do
not know. Why doesn't western science take its head out of the sand and 
spend some money to make some proper evaluations, both theroetical and
experimental? What is there to lose? There is much to gain,

                        Very Best Wishes,

                        Ramon Prasad 

         <internet:100437.530@compuserve.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden530 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.08.08 / Tom Potter /  Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
     
Originally-From: tdp@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,
ci.energy,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.particle,sci.research,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: General Relativity sucks, "space and time"
Date: 8 Aug 1995 23:24:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom

mdo4@le.ac.uk (M.D. O'Leary) writes:

>In article <3vr2rs$9ml@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Tom Potter  <tdp@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>I have shown many times that all properties can be reduced to cycles
>>and cycle ratios.
>>These physical properties are sensed and converted to
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Going from expressing something as seconds^-1 to saying that it is
_made_
>from time is not justifiable logically. Whatever transformation of
units you
>have accomplished is just not relevant evidence to support the
assertion that
>cycles are the stuff of which all is made. It's a long way to
Tiperary, but
>that doesn't mean Ireland is made of kilometers. (It's mostly Guinness
and peat
>bog, in fact).

At the most fundamental level, the cycle is a BIT , the fundamental
unit of information? What is more real than the BIT? God, mass, energy,
the soul, the mind, etc? And BTW, I have emphasized several times that
there is a difference between reciprocal time and cycles. A cycle is a
quantum property, whereas time and reciprocal time are continous
properties.

>>mind stuff. The hierarchy of transforms from fundamental "reality"
>>( Cycles ) to perception is as follows:
>>cycles -> cycle ratios -> physical properties ( frequency, energy,
etc. )
>>-> sensory input -> auto correlation with other simultaneous sensory
input
>>-> cross correlation with existing memory -> mental perception
>
>You are using the '->' symbol to avoid deciding between using the word
'is' and
>the word 'describes'. For instance, cycle ratios may _describe_
physical
>properties, but you havent given any evidence that they _are_ physical
>properties.
>
>Since your units transformation is not sufficient evidence to support
this
>hierarchy you present, its time to bring out some evidence, or suggest
a test
>that could be made to distinguish say between "charge is charge" and
"charge is
>a cycle ratio made of mindstuff".

Charge is not a cycle ratio. Charge, baryon number and hypercharge are
actually fundamental units of information. ( Bits or cycles. )

>>1. All of the physical properties can be mapped directly to cycles.
>
>It may be true that they can be _described by_ cycles.

As I indicated above, what is the best perception of fundamental
reality,
cycles or progressive more complex entities? Democritus suggested that
all things were composed of fundamental objects. This seems to be the
view currently held by science. However if you recursively examine the
intensions of any object, you will ultimately end up with a small set
of properties. ( Charge, baryon number, etc. ) When these properties
are examined recursively, you end up with only cycles.

>>2. The senses are non-linear and only operate with a resolution
>>   of about one percent of the full scale log response.
>
>Near meaningless.
>What is the 'full log scale response' of touch?
>What is the 99% of temperature perception that we are missing?

I don't think that the sense of touch is very accurate.
I suggest that you use a postal scale and see how well you can
correlate your perception of touch to what the scale reads. Plot your
estimate on a log scale and let me know what you get.

>Within its design parameters (i.e. visible wavelengths) the eye
outperforms any
>device we have (mainly by being able to operate over a range of orders
of
>magnitude of photon flux).

>>3. Perception involves both sensory input and hard wired calculations
>>   which have proved to have some survival value. For example,
various
>>   animals see colors, shape and movement differently. This
difference
>>   was selected out by "Natural Selection" forces.
>
>True. Pheasants panic if a 2d hawk silouhette moves over them. If the
same
>cutout is moved back over them in the opposite direction (i.e. looking
somewhat
>like a goose or swan in flight), the pheasants do not panic.
>
>>4. After perception, the input data is resolved in such a way as to
>>   optimize glandular secretions.
>
>True only in cases where a glandular response is appropriate.
>Reading a map in order to work out how to get to a museum is not a
glandular
>'fight or flight' process....

Reading a map is a low level "fight or flight" response if you are
flying an airplane or getting paid to read maps. If you are in a state
of reverie, I suspect that you are engaged in the Godel-evolution
dichotomy suggested by Paul Budnik.

>>   For example, Ben Joe Bullock
>>   compares new input data to the model of physics he has formed
>>   through years of study. If the new data does "not compute",
>>   various glandular secretions occur and he must resolve this
>>   conflict with a fight or flight reaction. ( Flaming or kill filing
)
>
>Absolute rubbish. I don't know who BJB is, but any scientist worth the
name
>assesses the rigour with which the data was collected, and if it
cannot be
>faulted on that basis, accepts the data and abandons or modifies any
>theories/hypotheses that cannot incorporate that data.

According to my years of experience dealing with many scientists, I
suggest that most are driven by the need for status, and to get the
next grant.

>If this was just an incidental falme at someone else, why not just
send it to
>them. If it was intended as a general observation of the nature of the
>scientific community, it is both insulting and very wrong. A strawman,
in fact,
>and a familiar one.

This was not an incidental flame. It was a calculated one, specifically
intended to discourage flamers, who hide behind the reputations of
their organizations, from inhibiting timid potential posters.

>>> What you have done, if accurate (I'm not qualified to judge), is a
very clever
>>> translation: It deserves the same congratulations that are given to
a kid the
>>> first time he writes in joined-up handwriting, or to a translator
who preserves
>>> the sense of a poem in a different language (incidental applause to
the
>>> translator for 'Cyrano'). You've applied the rules in a new way.
Well done.
>>>
>>> But you go on to say that your new way of expressing the same old
things really
>>> means that the 'old' ways of expressing things were distortions and
highly
>>> misleading: this _may_ be so, but it would have to be _proved_ to
be so. You
>>> may be saying "Bonjour!" instead of "Good day!", but that doesn't
prove that
>>> "good day!" is _not_ a greeting. Your playing around with units in
physics may
>>> have utility, but it is just a different way of saying ther same
thing - the
>>> underlying meaning is unchanged.
>>
>>The difference between physics and language is that there is not a
>>quasi-random, environmentally-based, relationship between "idea" and
>>the verbal representation of that idea.
>
>I disagree.
>Equations are the language with which we map phenomena and properties.
>Just as language is shaped by the properties of the human throat etc,
our
>equations are shaped by what really happens in the world, but within
those
>limits there is room to express things in very different ways - like
changing
>all the units to time...
>
>You seem to be arguing that a phenomenon and the equation which
describes it
>are the same thing.

What do you think of Occams razor?
Why not explain things in the simplist form?
An object or phenomenon is the sum of its' intensions. If you read one
of my recent posts, you will see that all properties can be defined in
terms of:    property(X) = tangent(A)^l * tangent(B)^m * time^n
( Time is the ratio of cycles, and tangents are time ratios. )

>> Just as large objects can be
>>broken into smaller objects, complex properties can be broken up
>>into smaller ( more fundamental ) properties.
>
>You say this as though it flows naturally from your earlier point. It
doesn't.
>
>How do you prove that mass or charge can be broken down into
sub-properties?
>All you've done is say it can. Prove it. Give some shred of evidence
that might
>lead someone to think that this suggestion is at least reasonable.

As I mentioned, read my recent post which derives the masses of the Sun
and planets from the most fundamental properties.

>>Once you have broken
>>down a complex property ( Or object ) to cycles,
>>there is no place else to go. The ultimate form of information
>>is the BIT ( Binary unIT ) which in its most fundamental form is
>>the smallest cycle available. ( That associated with the electron
>>at this time, and that associated with the neutrino later. )
>
>We are off in your science fiction universe here.

How so? Are you implying that we have less fundamental "objects" with
which to measure effects?

>One shred of evidence or testable predicition will change this from a
fun story
>to a hypothesis.

Read my recent post which computes some solar system data.
If you are interested, compare the variances of the results using my
system with that using any other system.

>>> >By this reasoning, if you are color ( colour ) blind, I should
only
>>> >see the colors you see. In other words, you are substituting mind
creations
>>> >for global, symmetrical, indivisible, quantum  reality.
>>>
>>> You have failed to understand my reasoning at all:
>>> My point is, you insist that because you say "rouge" instead of
"red", the
>>> light is therefore of different wavelength. French is no more valid
that
>>> english in describing an object, just as "kilograms" are no more
valid than
>>> "seconds" in describing its properties.
>>
>>Then why should we screw around with atoms and atomic particles?
>>Why not consider the human as fundamental and define all chemicals,
>>elements and particles in terms of "the human".
>
>You _could_ describe everything in terms of humans if you wanted,
although if
>you're talking about elements and particles you'll find yourself using
the
>phrase "a lot lot smaller" most of the time. The fact that you chose
to
>describe things in this way doesn't mean that that is what they are
made of!
>Its description, analogy.

What could be simplier than a BIT of information?

>You seem to be operating from several unquestioned assumptions:
>1) There is a fundamental thing from which everything is made.
>2) If you can describe everything with reference to one unit, that
unit must
>   be the measure of the 'fundamental thing' in (1).

If you can find a "thing" more basic than a BIT, let me know.

>Neither of these assumptions are valid. Both require proof. Why do you
hope
>that the universe is so tidy?

I don't hope that the universe is tidy. I like chaos and variety.

>>> >Why write the book for color blind people?
>>>
>>> The easy way to convince a colour-blind person that they _are_
limited in
>>> perception is to demonstrate the utility of your extended colour
vision -
>>> seeing those hidden numbers in the dot patterns or whatever.
>>>
>>> So, if your time-based perception of the world is superior to mine,
fenced in
>>> as it is by the unnecessary notions like locality, mass, distance,
potential
>>> etc., all you've got to do is demonstrate utility: a testable
prediction, or a
>>> description that follows logically in 'cycles' but is
near-impossible to
>>> express in my limited vocab of modern physics. Note that in my
first comment I
>>> didn't question that your translation might have merit in spotting
>>> relationships or describing systems...
>>
>>Unfortunately, physics is currently a massive hierarchy, from which
>>data has been assembled using the existing model. For example, if
>>you use my method on Solar system data, you will find that you end
>>up with a better variance ( Standard deviation ) than you will get
>>if you used conventional physics.
>
>What sort of 'solar system data'? Meaningless to me without some sort
of
>context.
>
>Any physicist care to check these claims - or have they been checked
before?

As I mentioned, I recently posted a chart of computed solar system
data.

>>It becomes clear that the data
>>which one uses as a standard to which a new theory must be gauged
>>is computed from the existing theories. In other words, almost
>>all astronomical and ionization data operates on the principle
>>that radius is a primary concept rather than considering that
>>two distances or interaction times best define a system.
>
>Hang on, I thought distance disappeared in your 'cycles' model: how
can it have
>a defining role if it is just mindstuff?

Communications is more effective when you operate on a common channel.
Sometimes it is effective to use the concepts of time, distance and
mass, and sometimes it is more effective to use the concepts of Mom,
apple pie and the American flag. With some girls, booze works.

>But again - I'm not qualified. is there a physicist in the house?
>
>>This
>>approach causes the "reduced mass" problem in atoms and similar
>>errors in orbital systems.
>>
>>In other words, if NASA and any other organization used my
>>approach to computing orbits and such:
>>
>>1. The results would be more accurate.
>
>This seems testable. Care to post a comparison of say the flightpath
NASA used
>to put stuff in orbit around mars and the one you would've suggested?

Proofs seem to be an open ended battle.
If you are interested enough, why not calulate ionization potentials or
solar system data? Bear in mind that the masses of the planets were
calculated using the erronous concept of radius. This is not a hedge,
my method will give good results, even if you do not correct for the
"reduced mass" of the planets.

>>2. The computation would be simpler, and thus less prone to error.
>>3. Much less computer resources would be needed. This is very
>>   desirable in real-time and processor-intensive applications.
>>4. The Babel of units and constants could be done away with.
>
>In the same comparison, these points would become obvious, were they
valid.

I suspect that some sharp programmers, who have run into time
constraints in some real time applications are thinking about my
approach right now. It will seep into the system in ten or so years. I
remember back in the middle 70's, we, who attended the first
microcomputer hobbiest shows, wondered why no one was making hardware,
writing software or even improving on the old Western Electric,
Teletype, 10 CPS, impact printer.

>>I am confident that a few programmers around the world have grasped
what I
>>have presented, and that as they discover how much their programs can
be
>>improved by using my approach, that they will be forced to use them
in
>>tight real-time and processor-intensive applications, and at that
point
>>these ideas will rapidly permeate the data processing, engineering
and
>>physics communities.
>
>Any programmers out there care to comment?
>
>>I welcome inquiries from companies, engineers and programmers who
>>are fighting time or processor constraints in real-time applications.
>>Why work with the Babel of convoluted equations, a multitude of
>>constants and units when there is a better, faster, more accurate
way?
>
>Maybe they want the right answer?

Then I suspect that they will contact me.

>M.
>
>(to quote one of my favourite .sigs: "good, fast, cheap: pick two" -
sounds
>like you are claiming to be fast and cheap)

I guess you'll have to scrap your sig,
as my system is fast, cheap and GOOD.

>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>Mark O'Leary,                           mdo4@le.ac.uk
>Leicester Antibody Group.               "Is all that we see or seem
>(anti-KDEL & ABP1)                       But a dream within a dream?"

To paraphrase the Bhagavad Gita:
That which is, has always been.
That which is not, will never be.
Beginning and end, are but dreams.

Give my regards to Timothy.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug  9 04:37:06 EDT 1995
------------------------------
